One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals….Now add hundreds of billions for welfare and remittances! MICHAEL BARGO, Jr…… for the AMERICAN THINKER.COM

WATCH
LA RAZA HILLARIA HISPANDER AS BAD AS OBAMA WHO OPERATED AND FUNDED THE
MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA
V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ!

Black leaders expect Clinton to deliver

Black voters bolstering Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination expect her to deliver results if she wins the White House.

Prison
reform, education and increasing black employment are among the issues
that black leaders have raised with Clinton as they have pledged their
support.

Rep.
Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said members of the Congressional Black Caucus
have spoken to Clinton about anti-poverty legislation sponsored by Rep.
James Clyburn, who delivered a crucial endorsement for the former
secretary of State in the days before her big win in South Carolina’s
primary. “She has said that she will support that strongly, and we
think she’ll have a strong chance of getting that through,” Cleaver said
in an interview with The Hill, adding that Clinton “embraced it
quickly, which is extremely important to us.”

If Clinton wins the
presidency, she’ll owe a part of the victory to black voters, who have
largely been the difference in her primary fight against Bernie Sanders.

Clinton
built her delegate lead by sweeping the South, largely because of the
black vote. NBC exit polls show that Clinton trounced Sanders 81 to 18
percent among African-Americans in Florida, where she won a huge
victory. In Cleaver’s home state of Missouri, she also fared much better
than the Vermont senator among black voters, winning 67 percent.

Given
that context and Clinton’s stated desire to take action on income
inequality and jobs, it’s easy to imagine the Clyburn legislation —
which has drawn support from Republicans — being moved in the first 100
days of a Clinton administration.

Clyburn’s bill would direct at
least 10 percent of federal spending on discretionary programs to
communities where at least 20 percent of the population has lived below
the poverty line for at least the last 30 years. While many of those
districts have poor white populations as well, the bill could help black
Americans struggling in the economic recovery.

Black leaders who have backed Clinton will be looking for more, however.

Rep.
Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said he hopes the former first lady addresses
“inadequate jobs, inadequate housing and inadequate education” in black
communities. He’d also like to see diverse appointments not just at the
Cabinet level but at the sub-Cabinet level and in the judicial system.
“I
believe she gets it,” Hastings added of Clinton’s understanding of
concerns within the black community. “I think she’ll listen to me and
[Congressman] Charlie Rangel, [Congressman] Bobby Scott, those of us who had been around, and I think she would spend some time in the communities.”
Cleaver,
a longtime Clinton supporter who endorsed her in the 2008 presidential
primary, said he sat down in a Des Moines hotel room with the Democratic
front-runner to talk about issues that black voters want the next
president to focus upon.

“I can’t say I laid out an agenda, but by
the time the general election begins, that’s when we start speaking
very specifically about what we’d like to see her champion,” Cleaver
said. “No one is going to be hesitant to be candid. She’s trying to win
the primary election and this may not be a good time for one particular
group to demand things.”

Clinton is hoping that black voters keep her on top in New York’s primary on April 19.
On
Sunday, she made stops at three African-American churches in New York
City to highlight her work and her husband’s work when he was
president.

The effort hit a major speed bump last week when Bill Clinton
got into a public argument with protesters in the Empire State over the
1994 crime bill he signed into law. As protesters chanted “black youth
are not superpredators,” he defended the legislation, arguing the
protesters were “defending the people who killed the lives you say
matter.”

Bill Clinton a day later said he regretted the comments, but Sanders has sought to make them an issue.

Independent
observers say the remarks hurt Hillary Clinton, but that reservoirs of
goodwill for the Clinton years will help the former first couple weather
them.

“That comment will make it harder to woo younger
African-Americans to her side,” said Democratic strategist Jamal
Simmons. “But I think older African-Americans remember how bad things
were at the time.”

A Quinnipiac University poll late last month
showed that African-Americans in New York support Clinton 66 percent to
31 percent for Sanders.

Clinton in some ways is following in the steps of Barack Obama
in forming a coalition of support in the Democratic primary. In 2008,
the then-Illinois senator, not Clinton, benefited from black support
because many in the community wanted to help elect the first black
president.

Obama was under pressure after his election to do
something for the black community, and there are critics who argue he
did not do enough.

“Historians are going to have a field day
trying to juxtapose how in the era of the first black president, the
bottom fell out for black America,” talk show host and frequent Obama
critic Tavis Smiley said late last year on Fox News. “Black people were
still in many ways politically marginalized, socially manipulated and
economically exploited.”

Obama frequently talked in his first term about how he wanted to be the president for all Americans — not just black Americans.

In
some ways, that situation arguably put him in a more difficult position
upon entering the White House than Clinton would find herself in.
Clinton would at least not face critics guessing that a position to help
black America was being taken because of her race.

Cleaver and
Hastings say that despite some misgivings over the crime bill and
welfare reform, black voters have good memories of the Clinton years
that are now helping the former first lady.
“A large part of it has to do with Bill Clinton,” Hastings said. “They were a team. And people know they will be a team.

“What
people saw in Bill Clinton was a person who was sensitive to their
needs,” Hastings said. “Black folks would be really happy if she
accomplished 75 percent of what her husband did.”
Clemmie L.
Harris, a visiting assistant professor at the Center for African
American Studies at Wesleyan University, said some in the black
political class feel as though they had greater access to the White
House under Clinton then they did under Obama.

With a new Clinton presidency, they hope it will “return to that level of opportunity.”

THE
PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY HAS HANDED OUT ONLY ABOUT 9 MILLION TO
CHARITIES OF THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THEY'VE COLLECTED IN BRIBES FROM
DICTATORS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, CRIMINAL CRONY BILLIONAIRES AND BANKSTERS.BUT THEY'VE BOUGHT CHELSEA A $11 MILLION DOLLAR APARTMENT IN NYC.DO THE MATH. IT'S CALLED OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS!

HILLARY CLINTON SAYS MILLIONS MORE VOTING ILLEGAL SHOULD BE HANDED OBAMACARE!CLINTON'S PLATFORM IS SIMPLE: BUILD THE MEX WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA'S BACK TO BUY THEIR ILLEGAL VOTES.THEY ALREADY GET MILLIONS OF OUR JOBS AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE!THE AMERICAN THINKER

NO ONE SERVES HIS PAYMASTERS ON WALL STREET MORE THAN BARACK OBAMA!

HE SMELLS THOSE SPEECH FEE BRIBES ALREADY!

AND HILLARY IS OBAMA'S CLONE!

Drug
prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign
advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for
show. Of
all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of
donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking
in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

US drug prices doubled since 2011

By Brad Dixon18 March 2016

According to a new report by
the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the average price of
brand-name drugs increased by 16.2 percent last year. Between 2011 and
2015, branded prescription drug prices have nearly doubled, rising 98.2
percent. Since 2008, the prices have increased by a whopping 164
percent.

Drug spending rose by 5.2 percent in 2015.
This was about half the increase seen in 2014, the year of the largest
hike since 2003.

The report is based upon prescription
use data for members with drug coverage provided by Express Scripts plan
sponsors. In assessing changes in plan costs, the report distinguishes
between the relative contributions from changes in patient utilization
(e.g. more patients being prescribed the drug) and changes in the unit
price of the drug (e.g., price hikes).

In the late
1980s and early 1990s, most drug spending was on traditional drugs
(small-molecule, solid drugs) to treat conditions such as heartburn,
depression and diabetes. The recent trend has been a shift to specialty
drugs. Still, within traditional therapy categories there were
significant increases in spending on medications to treat diabetes,
heartburn and ulcers, and skin conditions.

Diabetes
medications remain the most expensive of the traditional drug
categories. Drug spending in this category increased by 14 percent, with
the hike being equally influenced by increased utilization of the drugs
and rise in unit cost. Three diabetes treatments—Lantus, Januvia and
Humalog—were among the top five drugs in terms of spending across all
traditional therapy classes.

Although not discussed in the report, an investigation by Bloomberg News last year found evidence
of “shadow pricing” by drug manufacturers, where companies raise their
prices immediately after their competitors do so. The investigation
found that the prices of diabetes drugs Lantus and Lemivir had increased
in tandem 13 times since 2009, and evidence of similar shadow pricing
for the drugs Humalog and Novolog.

Heartburn and ulcer
drugs saw a 35.6 percent increase in spending, almost solely due to the
rise in unit cost. Although 92.3 percent of the medications filled in
this category were generic, the price unit trend was heavily influenced
by the increase in prices of branded drugs such as Nexium, Dexilant and
Prevacid.

Treatments for skin conditions also saw a
significant increase of 27.8 percent in spending, again due almost
completely to rises in the unit costs of the medications. The report
notes that these increases occurred for both generic and branded
therapies, largely due to industry consolidation through mergers and
acquisitions leading to less competition in the market. While 86.3
percent of the drugs filled were generic, many of the generic versions
saw sharp increases in unit cost, including the two most widely used
corticosteroids, clobetasol (96.2 percent) and triamcinolone (28
percent).

While the overall spending increase for
traditional therapy classes was nominal (0.6 percent), the primary
factor for the increase in spending came from specialty medications.
Specialty medications require special education and close patient
monitoring, such as drugs to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis or cystic
fibrosis. Spending on specialty drugs rose by 17.8 percent in 2015. The
report found that 37.7 percent of drug spending was for specialty drugs
in 2015, and the figure is expected to rise to 50 percent by 2018.

Spending
in this category was topped by inflammatory conditions—such as
rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis—which
rose by 25 percent, driven by a 10.3 percent increase in utilization and
14.7 percent rise in unit cost. The average cost per prescription in
2015 was $3,035.95. The medications Humira Pen and Enbrel, which
captured more than 66 percent of the market share for this class, saw
unit cost increases of more than 17 percent.

Spending
on oncology therapies increased by 23.7 percent, due to both increased
use (9.3 percent) and increased unit cost (14.4 percent). New cancer
therapies average $8,000 per prescription and the average cancer regimen
is around $150,000 per patient. Between 2005 and 2015, the anti-cancer
drug Gleevec, manufactured exclusively by Novartis, has seen its price
more than triple, with an annual cost of $92,000. In 2015, the year
prior to the drug’s patent expiration, Novartis increased the unit cost
of the drug by 19.3 percent. This is a common practice for companies
facing patent expiration.
Drug spending on cystic fibrosis
treatments rose by a significant 53.4 percent, largely based on
increases in unit cost (40.9 percent vs. 13.3 percent from patient
utilization). This rise was largely due to use of the new oral
combination therapy, Orkambi, which became available in mid-2015. The
drug costs more than $20,000 per month.

The report
forecasts that between 2016 and 2018 spending will increase annually by
7-8 percent for traditional drugs and around 17 percent for specialty
drugs.

The prices of generic drugs have on average
decreased, although there are notable exceptions. Pharmaceutical
companies like Horizon Pharma, Turing Pharmaceuticals, and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals have purchased generic drugs and then significantly
hiked their prices.

The report notes the emergence of
“captive pharmacies” in 2015 as another factor responsible for higher
drug spending. Captive pharmacies are owned or operated by
pharmaceutical manufacturers and tend to promote their manufacturer’s
drugs, rather than generic or other low-cost alternatives. The report
gives as examples the arrangements between Valeant Pharmaceuticals and
Philidor Rx Services, and between Horizon Pharma and Linden Care
Pharmacy.

The Express Scripts data matches the findings
released earlier this year by the Truveris OneRx National Drug Index,
which found that branded drugs rose by 14.8 percent in 2015.

Despite
the widespread media publicity of the notorious drug price hikes by
companies like Turing and Valeant, pharmaceutical companies have
continued to inflate prices in 2016, with Pfizer leading the way with an average price hike of 10.6 percent for 60 of its branded drugs.

Workers
are rightly outraged at the skyrocketing price of drugs. A Kaiser
Family Foundation poll conducted last year found that 74 percent of
respondents felt that the drug companies put profits before people.

The
political establishment, however, has sought both to exploit this anger
for electoral support and to direct it into safe channels that do not
disrupt the status quo.

A congressional hearing held in January placed a spotlight on the price-gouging practices of HYPERLINK Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals, whose dubious activities were highlighted in a pair of congressional memos.
The purpose of the hearing, however, was not probe the underlying
causes of the sharp rise in drug prices. Instead, legislators sought to
safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole through a
verbal lambasting of the industry’s most notorious culprits.

Drug
prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign
advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for
show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient
of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry,
taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clinton’s
rival, Bernie Sanders, who has stated that he will support Clinton if
he loses the Democratic nomination, received $82,094 in donations from
the industry. Sanders has proposed a series of minor reforms to address
drug prices, such as the re-importation of drugs from Canada, allowing
Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and decreasing the
patent life of branded drugs.
None of the candidates, including
the “democratic socialist” Sanders, challenge the private ownership of
the pharmaceutical industry in which everything from research and
development and clinical testing to drug pricing and promotion are
subordinated to the profit interests of corporations.

Largest Civil Disobedience Action of the Century isn’t Anti-Trump, It’s Pro-Democracy

In an article published
here Wednesday, Aaron Klein wrongly characterized Democracy Spring as
an “Anti-Trump” campaign organized by “radicals…involved in shutting
down Donald Trump’s Chicago rally.”

We
want to set the record straight, make it clear where we stand on Trump,
and reach out to the all the conservatives who agree with us that big
money is corrupting our political system.

First,
setting aside any opinions on it, the assertion that the Chicago
disruption was the work of Democracy Spring is simply untrue. Over 100
organizations have endorsed Democracy Spring. Their independent actions
(and funders – George Soros hasn’t given us a dime) are distinct from
our collective effort.

Second,
while the leaders, organizations, and the vast majority of
participants in Democracy Spring have profound and severe disagreements
with Donald Trump, our nonviolent, non-partisan campaign is not a
response to him.

Nor
is it a response to any single candidate, party, or election. Democracy
Spring is a response to the corruption of our entire political system, a
system dominated by big money and inaccessible to many Americans who
face growing barriers to the ballot box.

No
matter who you support for president this year, surely we can all agree
that our elected officials should work for all of us – not just wealthy
special interests and big campaign contributors. In fact, we know many
voters support Trump because he calls out this corrupt system and claims
to stand outside of it as a self-financing candidate.

To this, we say: we hear you. The

system is corrupt. The economy is rigged. Big

campaign contributors do pull the strings in

Washington. Working people are right to be

angry about trade policy and the betrayal of

the middle class, working families, and the

poor by an elite establishment that profits

from the status quo.

But
we also challenge Trump supporters to consider a few things. Our
corrupt campaign finance system goes far beyond presidential races and
will not change by simply electing a president who supposedly can’t be
bought. Without serious policy solutions, whoever we elect
Commander-in-Chief will still have to deal with 435 members of Congress
who are more eager to appease their donors than their own constituents.

Trump
has yet to propose any solutions that would ensure every member of
Congress and candidate for local and state office in America are elected
in a way that makes them, as James Madison wrote, “solely dependent
upon the People as whole – not the rich more than the poor.” If our
system only allows us to choose between candidates who are bought by
billionaires and billionaires themselves, then it is not a democracy. It
is plutocracy.

That
is why more than 2,600 American patriots have pledged to risk arrest in
Democracy Spring, a massive nonviolent sit-in at the U.S. Capitol this
April. The campaign will force Congress to choose between putting
hundreds of peaceful defenders of the republic in handcuffs, or simply
doing their job and passing reforms to fix our broken system.

It’s
true Democracy Spring is led by many organizations associated with the
left. But there’s no reason it must remain that way. We are a
nonpartisan campaign open to all. And conservatives and liberals agree
when it comes to the urgent need for solutions to rebalance the system.

Last year, John Pudner, the political strategist who helped lead

Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)

100%

’s 2014 upset over former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, launched Take Back our Republic to
advance conservative solutions to the problem of money in politics. For
example, Take Back supports tax credits for small donations to
political candidates to encourage more people to become involved in the
political process. The group also supports more disclosure of large
donors to ensure voters’ right to know who is trying to influence their
vote and their lawmakers.

In a recent column,
Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief White House ethics
lawyer, explained why the current system fails to address the needs and
concerns of conservatives. He wrote, “campaign contributions drive
spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere,
contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy
companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit
educational institutions that don’t educate.” Moreover, he writes,
“campaign contributions breed more regulation” as companies use campaign
cash to win special legal advantages over their competitors.

Progressives
would disagree on public funding to spur clean energy innovation and
the characterization of more regulations as necessarily bad, but we
stand fully with Painter on his core point: “[Today’s] system is a
betrayal of the vision of participatory democracy embraced by the
founders of our country.”

Indeed,
there is an opportunity today for progressives and conservatives to
stand together to defend our republic and win reform that will let us
settle our other differences on an even, open playing field where the
best ideas and the broadest support are what count – not the backing of a
moneyed elite.

Yet
– and allegiance to the values that truly make America a great country
demand that we make this crystal clear – Donald Trump’s candidacy is
making this kind of unity across differences incredibly difficult. We
are a nonpartisan campaign but not an amoral one. We are compelled to
speak (and I am confident that I can speak for us all) when I say that
Trump’s statements, proposed policies, and threats of violence
concerning undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the KKK, protesters
exercising their First Amendment rights, and others have crossed a very
serious line into the territory of fascism and hate speech.

America is better than this. Conservatives are better than this.

Democracy
Spring is a nonviolent campaign and, in the tradition of the civil
rights movement, will strive to reach out to our most bitter opponents.
We will seek unity with all who agree that every American deserves an
equal voice and a government of, by, and for the people. Rather than
letting our differences divide us, conservatives and progressives of
conscience should come together on this common ground and renew our
republic.

Politicians
from both parties broke the system. It’s going to take voters from both
parties — and independents committed to neither — to force our
representatives to fix it.

It’s time to demand that Congress listen to the people and pass common-sense solutions to return our government to us all.

Kai Newkirk is lead organizer of Democracy Spring.

March 22, 2016

DHS says administration has 'no

intention' of deporting most illegals

The
president of the National Border Control Council testified before
Congress that a top Homeland Security official told agents that the
Obama administration has "no intention of deporting" most illegal
aliens.This
"catch and release" policy amounts to a de facto amnesty for the tens
of thousands of illegals who jump the border every year.

DHS
claims that the policy is in place because immigration courts are
clogged up. So instead of expanding the number of judges and courts,
they simply give up and allow the illegals to disappear into the
underground.

Mr. Judd provided
his testimony in written answers released Monday by the House Judiciary
Committee, saying that even in some criminal cases, agents are ordered
to let illegal immigrants go without ever issuing them a Notice to
Appear, or NTA, which is what puts them into deportation proceedings.

Mr. Judd said they took their case directly to Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who told them not to bother.

“Deputy
Secretary Mayorkas told us that the Border Patrol needs to focus its
resources towards the worst of the worst. He said that by prioritizing
those we choose to deport, we will help alleviate the burden on an
already overburdened court system,” Mr. Judd recalled.

“He
further stated, ‘Why would we NTA those we have no intention of
deporting?’ He also stated, ‘We should not place someone in deportation
proceedings, when the courts already have a 3-6 year backlog,’” Mr. Juddrecounted.
“Since the day of this meeting, we have seen no improvements in
our enforcement efforts and the morale of the Border Patrol agents is
one of, if not the lowest in the entire federal government.”

Immigration
agents have complained for several years that Mr. Obama has tied their
hands, forcing them to release illegal immigrants who should have been
easy deportation cases.

Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, declined to comment on Mr. Judd’s testimony.

But CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, testifying to Congress earlier this month, brushed aside Mr. Judd’s comments, saying he didn’t believe agents were releasing people without putting them through the full process.

Mr. Kerlikowske said Mr. Judd was
“probably not the most knowledgeable organization about what’s actually
going on” in the field with Border Patrol agents, and he said agents
that object to Mr. Obama’s policies should quit.

Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One
of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist
Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton
served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992.

Clinton rakes in cash overseas

Greg Nash

By Jonathan Swan - 03/20/16 10:30 AM EDT

Hillary Clinton's campaign has held more fundraisers on foreign soil than any other candidate running for president in 2016.

The
Clinton campaign has held at least 13 fundraisers overseas so far,
involving celebrities such as jazz singer Tony Bennett and fashion
editor Anna Wintour, according to tracking of political fundraising invitations by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

Clinton’s
offshore fundraisers, which tap wealthy U.S. citizens and permanent
resident living abroad, have spanned from London, where the campaign has
held at least eight fundraisers, to Munich, Mexico City, and Durban,
South Africa. None of the Clinton campaign's foreign events, so far as
the invitations suggest, have featured the candidate herself, though
surrogates including her daughter Chelsea, have hosted the high-priced
gatherings.
No other candidate running for president this cycle
has done anything remotely approaching the amount of overseas
fundraising as Clinton's campaign has done to date.
The former
secretary of State has dwarfed her rivals in expatriate cash, raised at
least $495,000 so far from Americans living abroad, according to The
Hill's analysis of federal election records.
Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary race, Bernie Sanders,
has raised less than a quarter of that, and the three Republicans still
in the race have raised relatively miniscule amounts from Americans
abroad.Ted Cruz has raised just $23,000 overseas; Donald Trump —
who has a “donate” button on his website but doesn’t hold fundraisers —
took in $1100; and John Kasich has raised only $50 from overseas
donors, according to figures disclosed in the most recent reporting
period.
Even Jeb Bush, who has a wide political network overseas
through his family’s connections, only raised slightly more than
$200,000 from Americans living abroad.
No foreign fundraising
invitations could be found by the Sunlight Foundation for any other
candidate besides Clinton. One of the rare examples of a foreign
fundraiser for a 2016 presidential candidate found on the public record
is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who went to Israel last year in
part to raise money for his campaign.
While
overseas fundraisers are hardly a new practice for well-known
establishment candidates; the Clinton campaign is on pace to exceed even
what the sitting President Barack Obama managed in 2012, assuming she becomes the Democratic nominee.
Throughout
the two years of the 2012 presidential cycle, President Obama's
campaign held at least 13 fundraising events on foreign soil in
countries as far-reaching as China and Egypt, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign held at least four fundraisers in London and Jerusalem.
Long-time
Democratic fundraiser Kenneth Christensen, whose D.C.-based consulting
firm Christensen & Associates helps candidates set up their finance
operations, says he's not surprised that the Clinton campaign has
established a more powerful offshore finance machine than any other
candidate.
"Obviously with the Clintons they have a lot of
experience in doing that. They give lots of speeches overseas, and they
run into a lot of people," Christensen told The Hill in a telephone
interview Friday. "A lot of that fundraising overseas are relationships
they already have."
Christensen, who is focusing on Democratic
congressional races this cycle, indicated it would be professionally
negligent not to take full advantage of Clinton's relationships to
finance what is becoming an expensive primary race against a well-funded
Bernie Sanders campaign. The Clinton advantages include her global
connections as a former secretary of State, her family's foundation,
and above all, the unparalleled donor network established by both Bill and Hillary Clinton over several decades.

Clinton's
offshore fundraisers so far this cycle have included a post-concert
reception at London's Royal Albert Hall with Tony Bennett, a
"discussion" between Chelsea Clinton and Anna Wintour, and a Munich
Fashion Week event with former ambassador Melanne V

Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One
of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist
Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton
served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992.
The
Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaign fundraising,
stipulates that "foreign nationals are prohibited from making any
contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the
U.S." But the FEC allows that both U.S. citizens and "green card"
holders living abroad (individuals lawfully admitted for permanent
residence in the U.S.) "are not considered foreign nationals and, as a
result, may contribute."
"I would expect a professional campaign
to take advantage of all their fundraising opportunities," Christensen
said. "She's capitalizing on it now to make sure she's running an
aggressive and professional fundraising operation."

"Criminal
aliens released by ICE between 2010 and 2015 have been charged with 124
new homicides and thousands of other crimes that harm citizens and
degrade the quality of life in American communities."

In an interview with KTAR radio in Phoenix, Mrs. Clinton said
improvements under President George W. Bush and President Obama,
including several hundred miles of fencing, have cut net illegal
immigration from Mexico to zero.

“Now
I think it’s time to turn our attention to comprehensive immigration
reform,” she said, using the term immigrant rights advocates use for
legislation to legalize the 11 million illegal immigrants now in the
country.

Her
evaluation of the border stands in stark contrast to Republican
presidential candidates who say the border is not secure, pointing to
increasing seizures of drugs and to the renewed surge of CentralAmerican illegal immigrants.

But Mrs. Clinton said they’re ignoring how bad it used to be during her husband’s administration.

“I
think we’ve done a really good job securing the border and I think
those that say we haven’t are not paying attention to everything that
was done for the last 15 years under both President Bush and President
Obama,” she told KTAR. “We have increased dramatically the number of
border security officers, we have added physical obstructions like
fences in many places, and in fact the immigration from Mexico has
dropped considerably. It’s just not happening any more.”

Looking
over the last 20 years of illegal immigration from Mexico, Clinton may
have a point. Apprehensions at the border are way up and net immigration
from Mexico has fallen.

But that's hardly the entire picture:

But
the number of Central Americans attempting the illegal crossing has
surged over the last three years, leading some experts to say the border
problems have shifted, not gone away.

Border
Patrol agents say the new illegal immigrants are drawn by the chance to
take advantage of lax enforcement of immigration laws within the U.S.,
which gives them the opportunity to disappear into the shadows with
the 11 million other illegal immigrants already here.

Mrs. Clinton,who
will face voters in the Democratic primary in Arizona next week, has
come under fire from some Hispanic activists for having voted as a
senator for the Secure Fence Act, which called for building 700 miles of
double-tier fencing along the southwest border.

The
first line of defense of our borders has a much different view of the
matter. Border agents are supporting Donald Trump for his strong stand
against illegal immigration:

The
largest U.S. Border Patrol union local is praising Republican
presidential candidate Donald Trump for being the "only candidate" to
support their tough mission, an almost endorsement that is the latest
boost for the front runner's campaign.

"Mr.
Trump is the only candidate that has publicly expressed his support of
our mission and our agents. He has been an outspoken candidate on the
need for a Secure Border and for this we are grateful," said a statement
from Art Del Cueto, president of Local 2544 of the National BorderPatrol Council, the representative of 18,000 agents.

Perhaps
before the next time Hillary Clinton makes a fool of herself spouting
immigration nonsense, she should consult the people who know the
situation best; those charged with defending our borders from illegalaliens.

Human Events Online, February 17, 2016
. . .
As
Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council testified on Capitol
Hill recently: “The cartels understood that the unaccompanied minors
would force the Border Patrol to deploy Agents to these crossing areas
in order to take the minors into custody. I want to stress this point
because it has been completely overlooked by the press,” he told the
House Judiciary Committee. The unaccompanied minors could have walked
right up to the port of entry and requested asylum if they were truly
escaping political persecution or violence. “Why did the cartels drive
them to the middle of the desert and then have them cross over the Rio
Grande only to surrender to the first Border Patrol Agent they came
across?” Judd challenged.

“The reason is that it
completely tied up our manpower and allowed the cartels to smuggle
whatever they wanted across our border.”

This
is just another maddening example of Obama’s warped priorities at work.
Instead of building effective walls and enforcing our borders to
prevent the coming illegal immigration waves manufactured by criminal
racketeers, this administration rushes to build welcome center magnets
that shelter the next generation of Democrat voters.

U.S. Failed Three Times to Deport Illegal Alien Who Murdered WomanJudicial Watch Corruption Chronicles, February 18, 2016
. . .
Here’s
what we already know from local media reports in Norwich, the city of
about 40,000 residents where the murder occurred; the DHS agency
responsible for deporting illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), failed to remove Jacques at least three times dating
back to 2002. As if this weren’t atrocious enough, Jacques spent 17
years in prison for attempted murder before authorities released
him—instead of deporting him—in January of 2015, the Norwich Bulletin
reports. Six months later the 41-year-old illegal alien convict stabbed
25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death. Police said Chadwick died of sharp
forced injuries to the head and neck. Jacques is being held on a $1
million bond.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated
case. In the last few years illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal
histories have been allowed to remain in the U.S. despite being repeat
offenders. Judicial Watch has investigated several of the cases and
obtained public records from the government. For instance, back in 2008
JW launched a California public records request with the San Francisco
Sheriff’s Department to obtain he arrest and booking information on
Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three
innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent
street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a
gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a
pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country.
. . .http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/02/u-s-failed-3-times-to-deport-illegal-alien-who-murdered-woman/

Dozens of Homicides Committed by Criminal Aliens After Being Released by ICE

The
federal government shares responsibility when any illegal alien commits
murder — it failed to keep him out in the first place. And when a
sanctuary city releases a deportable criminal, Washington shares the
blame for any subsequent crimes because it’s not cracking down on such
rogue jurisdictions nullifying federal law.
But
federal responsibility is greatest when ICE actually has the criminal
aliens in its custody, and then releases them to go and kill some more.
Needless to say, the Obama administration doesn’t advertise when that
happens.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee demanded
the information from ICE, which my colleague Jessica Vaughan has
summarized. The most outrageous find: Since 2010, 124 criminal aliens
who were in ICEs custody and then released went on to be charged with
135 new homicides.

The Judiciary Committee also
asked about criminal aliens released by ICE more than once. Since 2013,
there have been 156 such criminal aliens, who racked up between them a
total of 243 additional convictions after being let go.

None
of these statistics include criminal aliens released by sanctuary
cities or those whom ICE simply refused to pick up from local jails in
the first place. These are only those who were in ICE’s hands, and then
let go.

Many of these non-citizen criminals were
released with ICE’s affirmative consent. A significant number were
ordered released by the Justice Department, pursuant to a Supreme Court
decision, because their home countries wouldn’t take them back. But even
here, the administration is culpable. The Secretary of State is
required by law to suspend the issuance of visas in any country that
won’t take back its own citizens. The Obama administration has never —
not once — complied with this legal requirement.

Here’s the list of countries ICE has identified as refusing to take back their deportable citizens:

Afghanistan and Iraq?
We let our colonies refuse to accept their deportable citizens, so they
can stay here and commit more crimes? Who, then, is the colonizer and
who the colonized? And how about Cuba? The administration has made clear
that the issue of deportees wasn’t — and still isn’t — even on the
table in discussion of normalizing relations. And the idea that
pipsqueak countries like Gambia or Cape Verde can freely defy us
suggests that “superpower” doesn’t mean what people think.

Politicians
have no business even suggesting things like amnesty or increased
immigration and guestworkers until outrages like this are banished.

THE MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE IN LA RAZA-OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA

Half of all murders are now committed by MEX gangs!

CA has the largest and most expensive prison system in the nation. Half the inmates are MEX.

Of the top 200 most wanted criminals in La Raza-occupied Los Angeles, 186 are MEX.

There have been more than 2,000 Californians murdered by Mexicans who fled back over the border to avoid prosecution.

WASHINGTON, DC (March 14, 2016) —
New information released to the Senate Judiciary Committee quantifies
the public safety impact of the Obama administration's lenient approach
to immigration enforcement, in which thousands of criminal aliens are
allowed to remain at large each year instead of detained and processed
for prompt deportation. Criminal
aliens released by ICE between 2010 and 2015 have been charged with 124
new homicides and thousands of other crimes that harm citizens and
degrade the quality of life in American communities.

The
Center for Immigration Studies reports that only a tiny percentage of
the released criminals have been removed. Only 3 percent of the criminal
aliens released in 2014 have been removed, with most receiving the most
generous forms of due process available, and are allowed to remain at
large, without supervision, while they await drawn-out immigration
hearings.

The vast majority (124) of these criminal
aliens were released in California. In addition, 16 were released in
Arizona, six in Texas, three in Florida, two in Georgia, and one each in
North Carolina, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon.

View the report and graphics showing crimes by state: http://cis.org/vaughan/Map-124-criminal-aliens-released-obama-policies-charged-homicide-2010 “The
Obama administration appears to be indifferent to the harm its policies
are inflicting in American communities,” says CIS Director of Policy
Studies Jessica Vaughan, who reviewed the ICE documents provided to the
Senate committee. “Many of these releases could be prevented.
Instead, the administration allows funded detention space to go unused,
declines to use efficient forms of due process for criminals, and shifts
millions of dollars that Congress provided for enforcement to other
purposes. In addition, they have failed to take action against
recalcitrant countries that won’t accept the return of their deported
citizens.”

Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release
some criminal aliens multiple times. Two of them had homicide-related
convictions even before they were released. These aliens had 464
criminal convictions prior to release by ICE, ranging from drug crimes
to DUI and other driving offenses to larceny and theft.

This tally does not include aliens who were released by sanctuary jurisdictions,
nor those aliens that were released by local law enforcement agencies
after ICE declined to take them into custody due to Obama
administration prioritization policies. This list includes only those aliens that ICE arrested and then released.

ICE
reported that there are 156 criminal aliens who were released at least
twice by ICE since 2013. Between them, these criminals had 1,776
convictions before their first release in 2013, with burglary, larceny, and drug possession listed most frequently.

Without
the congressional inquiry into criminal alien crime, the public would
not have this Immigration status information from ICE, which should be
reported on a routine basis by all law enforcement agencies. Legislation
has been introduced by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) that would remedy this problem.

4. According to CA AG KAMALA HARRIS, herself a La Raza Dem, nearly half of all murders in CA are now by Mex gangs.

Man accused of killing five people in Kansas and Missouri was in U.S. illegally

A
Mexican man accused of killing five people in the Midwest this week was
a convicted felon living in the U.S. illegally, and he had not been
deported despite being arrested at least twice in recent years, federal
officials said.

Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino, 40, of
Kansas City, Kan., was captured in rural eastern Missouri early
Wednesday morning after going missing from Kansas on Monday and then
sparking a 17-hour manhunt in Missouri on Tuesday once his truck was
spotted along an interstate.

Officials, who had
previously warned Serrano-Vitorino might be armed with an AK-47, said he
was found with a rifle, but wouldn't say what kind.

Serrano-Vitorino
faces five counts of murder and other charges on suspicion of killing
four men on Monday night in Kansas City, Kan., and then going on the run
and killing another man almost 200 miles to the east in New Florence,
Mo. Officials have not given a motive.

The
case could have political implications, given Serrano-Vitorino's
immigration status and his criminal history, which includes a felony
conviction in Los Angeles County from 2003. Serrano-Vitorino was
deported to Mexico in 2004 but illegally returned to the U.S. sometime
later, officials said.Missouri's primary presidential election is next
week, and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and other
immigration critics have cited the death of Kathryn Steinle --
who was shot in San Francisco in July by a felon from Mexico living in
the U.S. illegally -- to call for harsher measures to control illegal
immigration.

Three Illegal Alien Convicted Rapists Arrested Sneaking Back into Texas

MCALLEN, Texas — Over
a period of three days, three illegal aliens from El Salvador with
criminal records as rapists are facing immigration charges after getting
arrested near the Rio Grande Valley of the Texas border with Mexico.

The
most recent arrest took place on Wednesday in the border city of
Hidalgo when U.S. Border Patrol agents found 28-year-old Manuel
Alexander Chicas Contreras. Details of how the arrest took place are not
listed in the criminal complaint obtained by Breitbart Texas. Once in
custody however, the agents requested a records check on Chicas and
learned that he had previously been deported.

Chicas
was deported on December 5, 2014 after he was released from prison for
having “sexual intercourse with a child over the age of 15”. For that
crime, Chicas was sentenced to 12 months in prison and had six months
from his sentence suspended prior to his deportation. On Thursday,
Chicas went before U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby who formally
charged him with one count of illegal re-entry and ordered he be held
without bond.

In
the second case, U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested 42-year-old
Salvador Antonio Coreas Rodriguez on Tuesday near the border city of
Hidalgo, court records from his arrest revealed. Rodriguez told agents
had crossed the Rio Grande into Texas on Sunday. When authorities ran a
records check on him they learned that Coreas-Rodriguez was convicted in
on May 2011 on the charges related to having the rape of a victim under
the age of 15. After serving part of his sentence he was deported to El
Salvador on September 2013. On Thursday, Coreas- Rodriguez went before
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby who formally charged him with one
count of illegal re-entry and ordered he be held without bond.

The
third case involved 34-year-old Denis Antonio Polanco who went before
U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby, also on Tuesday. The judge formally
charged him with one count of illegal re-entry and ordered he be held
without bond. Polanco’s arrest took place on Sunday near the border city
of Roma when Border Patrol agents found him. During a records check,
agents learned that he had been deported in June 1999 following his 1998
conviction of rape, court records obtained by Breitbart Texas
revealed.

Sheriff Joe: 39 Percent of Illegals Turned Over to ICE Return Back to Maricopa Co Jails

Tuesday on Fox Business
Network’s “Mornings With Maria,” Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arapaio
discussed the problems with illegal immigrants committing crimes in his
community and why he thinks Republican presidential front-runner Donald
Trump is the best one to deal with this problem.

Arpaio
also told host Maria Bartiromo of a statistic showing that over
one-third of all the illegal immigrants he has incarcerated and turned
over to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wind up back in his jails.

Partial transcript as follows:

BARTIROMO:
You are on the front lines, obviously, and your teams are on the front
lines and you’re seeing what’s going and coming through the border.
What’s your take on this most recent report? These people were in jail
and they were released from jail and then they were convicted of murder.ARPAIO:
Well, you know, that’s been out for a while, but I have more shocking
statistics that nobody will talk about except Neil Cavuto. He did bring
it out.BARTIROMO: Tell us about it.ARPAIO:
They are my statistics. I’ll tell you what it is, I also run the jails.
We average about 9,000 people in the jails every day and every month
they take statistics of those in our jails charged with all different
crimes, here in this country illegally, 8,600 have been turned over to
ICE for deportation and over 3000 keep coming back to the same jails
that I run. Now, think of that. They keep coming back. One guy came back
20 times. So, what’s going on? Are they going to the border and keep
hopping the fence or keep coming across or are they let out on the
streets of Maricopa County? I think-BARTIROMO: What do you think is happening? How is it possible that they were– that they’re coming back to your jails?ARPAIO:
Good question. I’ve written to the Homeland Security secretary, to
other officials. I get bureaucrat particular responses. I never get an
answer, but I got the facts. You’re talking about a hundred, that’s bad.
But what about just in my jails, 39 percent keep coming back to the
same jail and they are charged with many different crimes. So it’s very
disgusting. Something has to be done about this illegal immigration
problem.BARTIROMO:
What’s the answer though, sheriff? I mean, obviously, Donald Trump is
talking about this wall that he’s going to build. Is that going to be
enough? Is that going to be the solution or is there something else? I
mean, this is clearly the dividing issue right now within this country.ARPAIO:
It’s very simple, you deport them. You get them out of our country. Why
are they roaming the streets and keep coming back? They should be back
in the country that they came from illegally. So, that’s very simple.
You deport them and then you try to do something at the border.BARTIROMO:
Yeah, but Dagen, is it that simple though, just to deport 11 million
people? I mean, this is the whole argument that we’re having right now.
How can you deport all the illegals in this country right now?ARPAIO:
Well, I tell you what, we did pretty good just my office, I think, they
accused me of 100,000 people leaving because of our crackdown during
the past years. But it’s very simple. You deport them and when you come
across those here committing other crimes, you lock them up and send
them back where they came from. And that can be done. So why should we
surrender the greatest country in the world, we can’t take care of this
problem? So I support Trump and by the way, if you look at all the
politicians here is what they say, ‘We must secure the border.’ Then
they say ‘first,’ and then we’ll look at the internal problem. No, what
about talking about those here illegally already? Why say secure the
border first, you know the border will never be completely secure. I’ve
been on both sides of that border as a top official. So, you can’t
surrender. I like what Trump says. I had

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

16%

’
wife in my tent city last night and she learned something about, she
didn’t like the tents. Her husband is here today in Phoenix, I’m sure
he’ll bad-mouth me, but that’s OK.